TN Supreme Court hears 3 cases at MTSU

Oct. 1, 2013

Written by

Quint Qualls,

Ce’Dra Jackson

The Tennessee State Supreme Court left its Nashville chambers on Tuesday to convene at Middle Tennessee State University to hear three cases and engage students in a real-life court experience.

The Supreme Court Advancing Legal Education For Students program began in 1995 and made its way to a university campus for the first time on Tuesday after years of involving mostly high school students.

The first case in the SCALES day at MTSU was about the definitions of the words “pending,” “impending” and “in progress” and how they applied to State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith. Smith was convicted of fabricating evidence and filing false reports after his wife went missing in December 2007 in Murfreesboro. The questions centered on when the police investigation of her disappearance actually began as it related to his statements.

Smith’s attorney, Jonathan Miley, tried to convince the Supreme Court justices that the pending investigation was erroneously determined, that the photo lineup was suggestive and improperly conducted, and that newly discovered evidence could have possibly warranted a new trial.

The second case was Juan Alberto Blanco Garcia v. State of Tennessee, in which the defendant appealed his case, saying that he had pleaded in a child abuse case because of faulty legal advice.

Garcia claimed that his public defender said that he “may or may not have consequences from his conviction” and should, therefore, seek assistance from a lawyer who specializes in immigrant issues.

Garcia said he did not know that a guilty plea would not only result in deportation, but also in his being permanently barred from becoming a citizen of the United States. Garcia, who is married and has a child, both of whom are legal citizens, also stated that the public defender did not take the time to look up the appropriate case law that would have warned him properly — Padilla v. Kentucky — and that could have more likely protected his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

If Garcia is able to get the guilty plea overturned and wins the trial case, he will be able to then apply in immigration court to become a legal citizen.

Surrogacy dispute

The final case of the day involved a dispute over juvenile court jurisdiction to enforce a surrogacy contract.

A woman contracted with a couple, which included the biological father, to have a child as a surrogate mother. She received reimbursement for medical bills and other fees from the intended parents. Their contract stipulated that the surrogate mother did not “desire to have a parental relationship” with the child. Then she changed her mind.

The juvenile court ultimately denied the surrogate mother’s claim. She was ordered to give physical custody to the couple. The Tennessee Court of Appeals then affirmed that decision.

The surrogate mother is now arguing before the Tennessee State Supreme Court that a juvenile court lacks the jurisdiction to enforce the contract because surrogacy arrangements are not specified in the Tennessee Code.

The intended parents said the juvenile court has express jurisdiction in matters of parentage and that she changed her mind after knowingly entering into an agreement to carry the child for them.

The court referred to the three parties only by initials.

The court took each case under advisement and provided no timetable for an opinion.

Quint Qualls and Samantha Hearn are reporters for Seigenthaler News Service-MTSU. Ce’Dra Jackson is a reporter with Seigenthaler News Service-TSU.